03-01-2013, 04:50 AM
I agree with Jeremy, of course.
The speculation in the OP centers around a wordplay that exists in no extant text. It is merely reconstruction-ism/conjecture to assume that ABNA must have been used.
Akhi Steven Caruso - "Missed Wordplay" is a strong proposal, and assumes that you have a primary text to reference. It is only "missed" if you _assume_ that was the exact original wording. Absent a "Galilean" text with the wordplay you propose, it is merely that - a proposal. Interesting hypothesis, but nothing more. I realize that is your passion, but please realize mine is dealing in real primary sources. If you have one, I'd love to see it.
Textual criticism is fraught with dangers, one of them is demonstrated clearly in the reasoning being displayed by some posters on this thread. Once you conjecture what a reading "must/might/should/could" have been, it is easy to lean in all sorts of directions that amount to nothing more than potentially misleading pseudo-scholarship.
+Shamasha
The speculation in the OP centers around a wordplay that exists in no extant text. It is merely reconstruction-ism/conjecture to assume that ABNA must have been used.
Akhi Steven Caruso - "Missed Wordplay" is a strong proposal, and assumes that you have a primary text to reference. It is only "missed" if you _assume_ that was the exact original wording. Absent a "Galilean" text with the wordplay you propose, it is merely that - a proposal. Interesting hypothesis, but nothing more. I realize that is your passion, but please realize mine is dealing in real primary sources. If you have one, I'd love to see it.
Textual criticism is fraught with dangers, one of them is demonstrated clearly in the reasoning being displayed by some posters on this thread. Once you conjecture what a reading "must/might/should/could" have been, it is easy to lean in all sorts of directions that amount to nothing more than potentially misleading pseudo-scholarship.
+Shamasha